Sentences with phrase «arguments used in a court»

The reasons for accepting it do not form the kind of deductive proof we require in logic or pure mathematics, but they resemble the arguments used in a court of law to establish innocence or culpability.

Not exact matches

Now the entertainment conglomerates that own U.S. television networks are waging a legal fight, culminating in Tuesday's Supreme Court argument against a startup business that uses Internet - based technology to give subscribers the ability to watch programs anywhere they can take portable devices.

My father was a lawyer and used his own life as an argument in court against his idea that it was utopian and that we couldn't build a compassionate world or business structure because he did it.

A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on a temporary restraining order against an Oklahoma referendum that would ban the use of Islamic religious law in state courts.

By Richard Allen Greene, CNN London (CNN)- Christian activists in Britain are furious at the arguments their government will use against them when Europe's highest court considers whether employees have the right to wear crosses that show over their uniforms.

@Snow» Every one of the 10 points Colin said were actually used by the opponents of gay marriage (even in the arguments we heard in supreme court»

A court awarded Ramar Foods ownership of the Magnolia brand in North America, based on the argument of prior use.

Either way, my question was whether you actually show up in court and use «Asshole,» as a rebuttal, take insult at every argument, misunderstand everything said to you, and then refuse to address the actual point being made.

From a legal standpoint, there are two main laws that the observer may use in arguments with Committee members, in courts etc: Federal Law 67 «On basic guarantees» (lays down the rules for elections and referendums) and the Federal Law «On Presidential Election in the Russian Federation».

The seven - member Court of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday in two cases where a midlevel appellate court unanimously concluded last year that state oil and gas law doesn't trump the authority of local governments to control landCourt of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday in two cases where a midlevel appellate court unanimously concluded last year that state oil and gas law doesn't trump the authority of local governments to control landcourt unanimously concluded last year that state oil and gas law doesn't trump the authority of local governments to control land use.

Similar arguments have been used by intelligence agencies about terror suspects, triggering the creation of secret court hearings in the first place.

Bouchey's attorneys filed a copy of the transcript in Albany County Court recently to buttress their argument that top NXIVM officials have used litigation, as well as the criminal case, to attack her and other perceived adversaries.

With the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments 9 December on a case challenging the use of race - conscious admissions at the University of Texas at Austin, a top AAAS official said there is convincing research on the benefits of a diverse student population in science - related fields.

A quarter - century after outlawing strict racial quotas in higher education, the U.S. Supreme Court heard powerful arguments last week on whether race can still be one factor among many that colleges use to achieve diversity in admissions.

The Fall 2017 issue of Education Next includes an article by Ryan analyzing arguments made in court rulings on the use of race in college admissions by the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Sccourt rulings on the use of race in college admissions by the late Supreme Court justice Antonin ScCourt justice Antonin Scalia.

These serve as the foundation for understanding more complex topics, such as the elements of argument and the chain of legal reasoning used in court cases and historical documents.Advanced Composition and Rhetoric Honors also includes honors enrichment activities.

A veteran teacher suing New York state education officials over the controversial method they used to evaluate her as «ineffective» is expected to go to New York Supreme Court in Albany this week for oral arguments in a case that could affect all public school teachers in the state and even beyond.

«The Court rejected NYSUT's argument that the regulations could not allow state assessments to be used by local school districts for up to 40 percent of teacher evaluations,» the department said in a statement.

The big argument that Tom Kabinet is employing is a 2012 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which ruled in a dispute between Oracle and UsedSoft that the trading of «used» software licenses is legal and that the author of such software can not oppose any resale.

You can still go to court using the argument charges are «legally unfair» (you can't go to the Ombudsman if you've already failed in court though) so this may be an option for some.

However, it can still be used as a persuasive argument in other court cases.

Virginia Rutledge, counsel for The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (which filed a friend of the court brief in the case), told A.i.A., «The outcome can't be predicted based on questions raised during oral argument, but the Court has before it very compelling arguments for Prince's transformative use of Cariou's imagery and the significance of the First Amendment speech interests at stake, and was openly dismissive of allegations of market harm.&rcourt brief in the case), told A.i.A., «The outcome can't be predicted based on questions raised during oral argument, but the Court has before it very compelling arguments for Prince's transformative use of Cariou's imagery and the significance of the First Amendment speech interests at stake, and was openly dismissive of allegations of market harm.&rCourt has before it very compelling arguments for Prince's transformative use of Cariou's imagery and the significance of the First Amendment speech interests at stake, and was openly dismissive of allegations of market harm.»

At best, your argument that these lawyers are geniuses is that they set up a frivolous appeal to get a mootness ruling that could be used to confuse the trial court in order to issue a ruling they are probably entitled to anyway.

The immediate threat in the United States is that dirty energy lobbyists will effectively use hypothetical arguments of WTO or NAFTA illegality to chill congressional action and provide cover for U.S. legislators who are indebted to Big Oil, Big Coal and the LNG lobby for campaign contributions, even though international trade law is not incorporated into U.S. domestic law and violations can not be enforced in U.S. domestic courts.

It is to be hoped that some do, and a challenge to the judgment could be justified, either using the argument that the Court exceeds its jurisdiction in ruling so definitively on factual questions, or using constitutional values.

Finally, AG Saugmandsgaard ØE rejects the argument that the circumstances of the case under consideration are comparable to those which gave rise to the Court's pronouncements in Essent Netwerk and Association Vent de Colère, and warrant thereby the same positive conclusion as to the use of State resources.

The difference in purpose between the EEA Agreement and the EU treaties was used by the Court of Justice to substantiate its argument that although the wording of the EEA Agreement and the Treaties may be identical, diverging interpretation may be justified.

Appellate arguments require different skill sets than used in the trial court.

While most of the curriculum at Harvard during this time consisted of lecture and student recitation, skills development was also provided in the form of weekly moot courts, during which students argued questions of law before professors and submitted occasional written disputations on legal subjects.121 Although Stearns had previously used moot courts in his teaching at Harvard, Story and Ashmun refined them.122 Cases were handed out the week before argument, and two counsel were assigned to each side.123 The cases would then be argued the next Friday, with the other students taking notes of the argument; the professor in charge that week would issue a written opinion.124

As a Principal of Newman ADR, retired Justice Sandra Schultz Newman uses her experience as a former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice to help attorneys identify likely points of contention in their briefs, to anticipate questions that will be asked, to organize the appellate argument, and to be primed and ready to give clear, crisp and on - point answers to a judge or justice's queries.

These were to address one or more of eight issues seen as important to courts: form - filling — making court documents more accessible to litigants in person; order drafting — creating orders that are more likely to be accepted by courts; continuous online hearing — challenging the question of whether a court is a place or a service; argument - building — to aid non-lawyers in creating well - structured arguments, distinguishing fact from law; outcome prediction — using technology to answer the natural question «what are my chances of winning?»

For example, a casual perusal of the online legal research service Westlaw reveals that «mumbo jumbo» appears at least 251 times in judicial opinions.8 «Jibber - jabber» shows up just seven times (although surprisingly used by parties, rather than in statements from the court), while the more prosaic «gobbledygook» has 126 hits in the legal database.9 Believed to have been coined in 1944 by U.S. Rep. Maury Maverick of Texas, «gobbledygook» has been used by everyone from political figures referring to bureaucratic doublespeak (for example, President Ronald Reagan's stinging 1985 indictment of tax law revisions as «cluttered with gobbledygook and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to have high - priced legal and tax advisers») to judges decrying the indecipherable arguments and pleadings of the lawyers practicing before them.

We were debating about whether or not it was appropriate to be posting favorable court orders with the client's name and case number on it and distributing that amongst attorneys so that they could use them in future arguments.

is designed to provide reporters, lawyers, educators, and the public with prompt, accurate, unbiased information about newsworthy and legally significant cases pending in and decided by the Federal Courts of Appeals... Use this Web site to find short summaries of recent opinions of public interest and noteworthy cases pending oral argument.

In coming to this decision, the Court rejected two of the arguments that can be used to undercut fair dealing exceptions: (a) did the teachers have a viable alternative to using the exception and (b) did their use of the exception unduly damage the copyright holder?

We, just as AG Wahl in para. 87 of his Opinion, expected the unexpected, as the Court (again) used its «classic» effet utile argument, and solely on this basis came to its conclusion (or in reverse order).

The Internet Cases blog writes here that in Major v. McAllister, the Missouri court «refused to accept a website end user's argument that she should not be bound by the website terms and conditions that were presented to her in the familiar «browsewrap» format,» i.e., a visible link that read, «By submitting you agree to the Terms of Use.»

However, it remains to be seen how the Execution Court will treat the DIFC judgment if the judgment debtor raises an argument that the DIFC Court has been used as a conduit to enforce a foreign judgment in Dubai without having had to go through the Dubai Courts.

In several oral arguments in the Michigan Supreme Court I have walked up with either an iPad, actually I think the last time I used the detachable screen from my Surface Book, and used that as my tablet for my oral argumenIn several oral arguments in the Michigan Supreme Court I have walked up with either an iPad, actually I think the last time I used the detachable screen from my Surface Book, and used that as my tablet for my oral argumenin the Michigan Supreme Court I have walked up with either an iPad, actually I think the last time I used the detachable screen from my Surface Book, and used that as my tablet for my oral argument.

It has tabbed pages for each of the issues in my case, and that is what I use during oral arguments to present my case to the court.

Any confirming or follow - up written communication should set forth all of the arguments in opposition to the alleged claims, so that, in the event settlement can not be consummated, the communication can serve as an answer to the complaint (in many Small Claims Courts, a formal answer is not required and the Court will readily accept a letter setting forth the defendants» arguments), and be used as an outline for oral argument.

The court rejected this argument, relying on the analytical framework used by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Bouzari v. court rejected this argument, relying on the analytical framework used by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Bouzari v. Court of Appeal in Bouzari v. Iran.

In his opinion presented last Thursday, Advocate General Cruz Villalon suggests the Court should say no — based on somewhat conventional, yet interesting arguments which use the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in a very selective waIn his opinion presented last Thursday, Advocate General Cruz Villalon suggests the Court should say no — based on somewhat conventional, yet interesting arguments which use the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in a very selective wain a very selective way.

The criticisms raised in relation to the decision of the Court do not necessarily pertain to the result reached by the Court; rather, the issues touched by these short considerations pertain to the reasoning and the arguments used by the CJEU.

«Forensic» means, «of, relating to, or used in courts of law or public debate or argument.»

[10] The appellant's argument is that the Federal Court should have adopted the portion of this quote that is in parentheses as the test for anticipation where the subject matter is a method or use claim.

It's not a great argument, but I have seen it used to close down a scheme in England; courts tend to be unsympathetic to confidence tricks.

Things like trial preparation techniques give lawyers the opportunity to test out certain lines of argument before they use them in court.

At the same time, states like California, Colorado and Delaware have made the electronic filing of court documents mandatory, which not only helps drive the reality of the paperless law office forward, but also accounts for why more and more mobile devices are being used in the courtroom to present evidence or advance arguments.

Plaintiffs argued that evidence of failure to use a seat belt should be excluded because that conduct could not have caused the accident, and a plaintiff should not be required to anticipate negligent conduct by the defendant; the Court rejected that argument based largely on the language of the proportionate responsibility statute, which focuses on the various parties» roles in causing «the personal injury» or the «harm for which recovery of damages is sought,» rather than simply the occurrence that led to the injury.